Troy Senik: With justices set to rule on gay marriage, society already has

It's June in Washington, which means two things: We're about to be subjected to a display of ill-advised seersucker suits in the nation's capital, and the Supreme Court is set to hand down decisions on the most contentious cases from this year's docket. First and foremost in the public's mind will be cases testing the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8, both of them dealing with gay marriage.

It's normally not a good sign when a social issue is the marquee topic of the court's session. There's a reason, after all, that we call them "social" issues – there's usually no authoritative answer in the Constitution. Topics like this bend with the breezes of public opinion and thus are uniquely unsuited for the kind of permanent, binding definitions that the court dispenses. If you doubt this fact, look no further than Roe v. Wade. More than 40 years after the court attempted to definitively answer the abortion question, the issue is anything but settled.

The pulse of public opinion ought to be reassuring, however, to those who favor gay marriage. A survey released last week by the Pew Research Center shows support for same-sex marriage commanding majority support for the first time. More significant perhaps is the fact that a remarkable 72 percent of Americans now consider legal recognition for gay marriage "inevitable," including 59 percent of its opponents. This is what a surrender in the culture wars looks like.

That dramatic shift in public opinion (as recently as 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage, 57-35) carries with it a significant implication for the court's eventual decision: it won't matter much. If the judiciary fully embraces same-sex unions, they will be only slightly ahead of public sentiment. If they uphold DOMA or Prop. 8, you can bet good money that both issues will be revisited by some combination of voters or legislators in the near future. The trend lines are unmistakable. This ship has sailed.

There are several reasons that the movement to legalize gay marriage has gained steam in recent years. For one, attitudes about sexual orientation vary wildly by age. A rising generation of millennial voters considers homosexuality about as aberrant as left-handedness – a stark contrast to the stigma attached to it by their grandparents and the mild, politely suppressed discomfort it engenders in many of their parents.

Perhaps more important, however, has been the shift in tone from gay marriage advocates. When it was a fight that centered on material concerns – hospital visitation rights, tax status, etc. – it was far too clinical to inflame the passions. When it became a debate about whether the law should impede the commitment of loving, stable couples, however, the opposition began to atrophy. As perceptions of gay couples have normalized, opposing gay marriage has morphed from "defending traditional values" to simply being rude to the neighbors.

Those who regard protecting freedom as one of the foremost responsibilities of government should cheer the move towards equality. They should also remain vigilant, however, to ensure that a crusade for equal rights doesn't transform into an attack on dissent. In recent months, a New Mexico wedding photographer, a Washington florist, and a Colorado baker have all wound up fighting discrimination lawsuits for turning down business from gay weddings on the basis of religious conscience. A respect for freedom mandates leaving others to their own devices, but it need not require checking your own beliefs at the door.

Gay rights advocates are on the cusp of a major and deserved victory. This is a moment for magnanimity. Real liberty is not a zero-sum game. There is certainly enough civic space in America to accommodate both the freedom of gay couples to marry and the freedom of conscience that allows those with religious objections to sit out the proceedings (without in any way impeding them). This is a nation mature enough to countenance disagreement without taking it to the courts. If we could all agree on that, then we could get back to the real issues: like wondering what the deal is with those seersucker suits.

WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Letters to the Editor: E-mail to letters@ocregister.com.
Please provide your name, city and telephone number (telephone numbers will not be published).
Letters of about 200 words or videos of 30-seconds
each will be given preference. Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.